Re: Original commit history for gfortran

Hi all, I'm sorry if I made this turn into a discussion of the benefits of Free Software, just two short points ... On 2011-06-19 18:58, Steve Kargl wrote: On Sun, Jun 19, 2011 at 11:04:09PM +0700, "C. Bergstr?m" wrote: Andy started the project and at the time of the fork still was the majo

Re: Original commit history for gfortran

Hi Christopher, On 2011-06-18 14:39, "C. Bergström" wrote: On 06/18/11 05:16 PM, Toon Moene wrote: On 06/18/2011 12:12 PM, Toon Moene wrote: On 06/18/2011 05:05 AM, Christopher Bergström wrote: Hi We're in the process of considering contributing to gfortran for a special project, but when

Re: Bootstrap broken on darwin / fink

Hi Jack, Jack Howarth wrote: You didn't show the configure options you used to build gcc trunk against the fink libraries. You need at least... --with-gmp=/sw --with-libiconv-prefix=/sw --with-system-zlib --x-includes=/usr/X11R6/include --x-libraries=/usr/X11R6/lib Note that we don't set CPP

Re: Bootstrap broken on darwin / fink

Joseph S. Myers wrote: On Mon, 1 Jun 2009, Tobias Schlüter wrote: The complaint is about: ICONV_CONST char *inbuf = CONST_CAST (char *, ident); [...snip...] iconv_ret = iconv (cd, &inbuf, &inbytesleft,

Bootstrap broken on darwin / fink

Hi, I'm seeing this error: /Users/tobi/src/hggcc/build/./prev-gcc/xgcc -B/Users/tobi/src/hggcc/build/./prev-gcc/ -B/usr/local/i386-apple-darwin8.11.1/bin/ -B/usr/local/i386-apple-darwin8.11.1/bin/ -B/usr/local/i386-apple-darwin8.11.1/lib/ -isystem /usr/local/i386-apple-darwin8.11.1/include

Re: [PATCH]: bump minimum MPFR version, (includes some fortran bits)

Geoff Keating wrote: It seems like mostly, anyone using the compiler farm has to use --with-mpfr, and otherwise people avoid it. A random data point: if you use --with-gmp (as I have to), configure finds an mpfr in the same subdirectory, so you might want to look for that as well. Cheers, -

Re: [PATCH]: GMP/MPFR in-tree build instructions [Was: Re: [PATCH]: bump minimum MPFR version, (includes some fortranbits)]

Gerald Pfeifer wrote: On Tue, 14 Oct 2008, Tobias Schlüter wrote: I'll take care of this, provided Gerald approves the change. Gerald, if you think that copyright is a problem, I'll gladly rephrase it. Thanks for the change, it looks like a good one. You may want to make one or

Re: [PATCH]: GMP/MPFR in-tree build instructions [Was: Re: [PATCH]: bump minimum MPFR version, (includes some fortranbits)]

Matt Fago wrote: I and several other people have been bit by this, and I am currently trying to help someone else build gcc with gmp/mpfr. It seems to me that the easiest thing to do is an in-tree build -- it would be great if it were documented. How about something like the below? While genera

Re: [PATCH]: bump minimum MPFR version, (includes some fortranbits)

Adrian Bunk wrote: On Tue, Oct 14, 2008 at 02:37:13PM +0200, Tobias Schlüter wrote: Markus Milleder wrote: Adrian Bunk schrieb am 13.10.2008 17:41:15: E.g. the next stable release of Debian will likely ship with 2.3.1 . So in this specific case fulfilling a 2.3.1 requirement would be easy

Re: [PATCH]: bump minimum MPFR version, (includes some fortranbits)

Markus Milleder wrote: Adrian Bunk schrieb am 13.10.2008 17:41:15: E.g. the next stable release of Debian will likely ship with 2.3.1 . So in this specific case fulfilling a 2.3.1 requirement would be easy, while a 2.3.2 requirement would make it much harder to build gcc 4.4 . Much harder ? I

Status of Mercurial mirror

Hi, the Mercurial repository has not been updated since svn revision 133268 which happened yesterday morning GMT. With all this talk about git recently, I'm wondering if the Mercurial repository is still alive? Cheers, - Tobi

Re: Interoperability of Fortran array and C vector?

/* copied from the f77 frontend I think */ /* copied from c-convert.c without significant modification*/ I don't think this file has ever been modified in any non-mechanical way. So I'd assume that its contents are historical / accidental. Cheers, - Tobi -- Tobias Schlüter Am Cou

Re: Someone has caused regressions in gfortran

Jan Hubicka wrote: Thanks, I sent the patch for testing and lets see if it solves the problem. If the testsuite passes, and you intend to commit this, please add a FIXME. Cheers, - Tobi Honza Index: trans-decl.c === --- trans-d

Re: Can realloc be marked as a mallloc-like function?

H.J. Lu wrote: It looks like gcc assumes a functon marked with DECL_IS_MALLOC won't return an address which can alias something else. But it isn't true for realloc. Now, the qestions are 1. Can gcc make such an assumption? 2. Can realloc be marked as DECL_IS_MALLOC. BTW, glibc also marks reallo

Re: [patch,committed] Make Fortran maintainers "Non-Autopoiesis Maintainers"

Brooks Moses wrote: I'm not entirely sure that I agree with formalizing this for the Fortran maintainers in bulk, at least without discussion. My understanding (and it's entirely possible that I've missed something) was that this wasn't so much a formal rule as a general custom -- and, being a

Re: How can a front-end know what integer mode corresponds to int_fastN_t?

FX Coudert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on Mon, 16 Oct 2006: For Fortran 2003 standard conformance, the Fortran front-end has to know at compile-time what integer mode corresponds to some C99 types, like intmax_t, intN_t, int_leastN_t, int_fastN_t. For intN_t and int_leastN_t, I can see how to get

Re: Compilation time has more than doubled on some Polyhedron tests

Richard Guenther wrote: > I guess the fix for PR tree-optimization/22555 could make some difference > if fortran uses a lot of structures with embedded arrays. Basically this > enables decomposing these structures for aliasing purposes and should > generate better code. It is perhaps noteworthy t

Re: Compilation time has more than doubled on some Polyhedron tests

In looking at compiles times, I missed looking at memory usage: Dominique Dhumieres wrote: > On an AMD, the 20060105 build gives > > tree SSA rewrite : 0.45 ( 2%) usr 0.02 ( 5%) sys 0.36 ( 2%) wall > 35265 kB (27%) ggc > tree SSA incremental : 0.71 ( 4%) usr 0.02 ( 5%) sys

Re: Compilation time has more than doubled on some Polyhedron tests

Dominique Dhumieres wrote: > On an AMD, the 20060105 build gives > tree SSA verifier : 9.55 (50%) usr 0.09 (23%) sys 9.62 (48%) wall > 19 kB ( 0%) ggc > tree STMT verifier: 1.56 ( 8%) usr 0.00 ( 0%) sys 1.61 ( 8%) wall > 0 kB ( 0%) ggc > TOTAL : 1

Re: What happened to bubblestrap?

[ forwarding to gcc@gcc.gnu.org ] Jerry DeLisle wrote: > I just did a fresh build testing a patch here and then I try make bubblestrap > and "no target 'bubblestrap' I'm curious myself. Was this an intentional result of the toplevel bootstrap stuff? - Tobi

Re: question on checkout?

Giovanni Bajo wrote: > The section is unneeded and duplicates the first paragraph of SvnBasic. > Please, > make sure to not insert duplicate information in the Wiki, prefer to link. I > have removed the duplicate. Sorry, I had missed that section when I looked for it. Thanks, - Tobi

SVN: question on checkout?

> http://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/SvnSetup has the following example for > checking out the GCC sources under "Checking out a tree" > > svn co svn+ssh://gcc.gnu.org/svn/gcc/trunk > > but this doesn't work for me. Rather, I'm getting: > > % svn co svn+ssh://gcc.gnu.org/svn/gcc/trunk > Permission

Re: RFC: future gfortran development and subversion

Paul Thomas wrote: >>>I spent nearly 5 hours yesterday reading the svn FAQ, mailing list >>>archives, and the docs. I never came across this solution. >>> >>> > > Could somebody please distill the wisdom from this thread onto the > Wiki? I can understand why Steve might send 5 hours on it.

Re: RFC: future gfortran development and subversion

Steve Kargl wrote: > On Wed, Oct 19, 2005 at 08:59:36PM +0200, Tobias Schl?ter wrote: > >>>694Msvn40 <-- svn 4.0 branch 694Msvn41 <-- svn 4.1 branch 694M >>>trunk <-- svn mainline >>> >>>Now add one or two additional svn directories for large change sets and >>>this becomes intolerab

Re: RFC: future gfortran development and subversion

[ I've added gcc@ to the CC list and reproduced the message in full, FX already got the "buy a bigger harddisk" answer there, I think it makes sense to show that other people care about this, too ] Steve Kargl wrote: > I fear the impending switch to subversion will have a negative impact on > the

Re: help: interfacing between C and fortran program

Ingo Krabbe wrote: > Am Mittwoch, 14. September 2005 08:39 schrieb Gaurav Gautam, Noida: >>I have a function written in fortran say fun(x, y), with x and y as integer >>(scalars) . Function returns integer. >> >> >>I need to call this function from a C program. How do I do it. >>Can some one help m

Re: RFA: Darwin x86 alignment

Mark Kettenis wrote: >From: Dale Johannesen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Date: Thu, 21 Jul 2005 16:56:01 -0700 > >On x86 currently the alignments of double and long long are linked: >they are either 4 or 8 depending on whether -malign-double is set. >This follows the documentation of -

Re: Build failure under Cygwin_NT-5.0

Paul Thomas wrote: > Andrew, > > >>This is PR 21766. Patch here: >>. >> > > > You will have to explain this to me very slowly, preferably in baby talk Heh, I thought the same when I read the desription of what happens :-) - Tobi

Re: GCC 4.0 Freeze

Jack Howarth wrote: >Even if there were complete g77 compatibility in g95, folks may want > to stick with the g77 version from gcc 3.4 for awhile purely for > performance reasons. In doing some test runs of the APBS > Adaptive Poisson-Boltzmann Solver program, I discovered that the g95 > built

Re: Will people install gfortran in 4.0?

Gerald Pfeifer wrote: > On Mon, 21 Feb 2005, Tobias Schlüter wrote: > >>>To add a concrete example, unlike g77 in earlier versions of GCC, gfortran >>>is not and will not be part of the standard gcc40 port in FreeBSD. >> >>Do you have a pointer to where this d

Re: Will people install gfortran in 4.0?

(added [EMAIL PROTECTED] to the CC list, as that is the appropriate list for this dicussion) Gerald Pfeifer wrote: > To add a concrete example, unlike g77 in earlier versions of GCC, gfortran > is not and will not be part of the standard gcc40 port in FreeBSD. Do you have a pointer to where this

Re: Major regression on mainline

Thomas Koenig wrote: > On Wed, Feb 16, 2005 at 10:59:00PM -0500, Jason Merrill wrote: >>I suspect that the problem is that the transformations fold_indirect_ref_1 >>is doing on arrays don't mix well with how fortran handles arrays. > > > I have been trying to look at the problem in the BLAS sourc